IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 159 CRM-M No.18348 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.04.2026 Pinder Singh @ Bhinder Singh @ Pareshani ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conferencing). *** MANISHA BATRA , J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 27.02.2026 as passed by the learned trial Court in case arising out of FIR No.27 dated 16.03.2024 registered under Sections 21(b) and 27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Civil Lines Bathinda, District Bathinda, Punjab, whereby non bailable warrants have been ordered to be issued against him. The petitioner has been booked for commission of the aforementioned offences and has been challaned thereunder. He was arrested and was extended benefit of bail by learned trial Court vide order dated 09.05.2024. He absenteed himself on 21.04.2025 and then on 01.05.2025. His bail was cancelled on 01.05.2025 and bonds were forfeited to the State. Non bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against him for 10.10.2025. He surrendered before the learned trial Court on 07.05.2025. His bonds were ordered to be restored and he was further ordered to be MANJU 2026.04.07 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.18348 of 2026 -2- released from custody. However, he again absented himself on 10.10.2025 due to which proclamation was ordered to be issued against him for 26.11.2025. Interestingly, on 26.11.2025 instead of passing any order qua publication of proclamation or issuance of fresh proclamation, the learned trial Court passed an order for issuance of non bailable warrants against the petitioner byepassing the previous order dated 10.10.2025 whereby proclamation was ordered to be issued against the petitioner. On 27.02.2026, the matter was adjourned to 21.05.2026 for issuance of fresh non bailable warrants against the accused. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had voluntarily surrendered before the learned trial Court on 07.05.2025 and his bail bonds had been restored on that date. The learned trial Court had wrongly issued proclamation proceedings thereafter. He could not appear before the trial Court due to bona fide reasons and his absence was not intentional. Now non bailable warrants have been ordered to be issued against him again. This order is not sustainable as his bail does not remain cancelled any more. It is, therefore, argued that the order qua issuance of non bailable warrants be recalled, he be permitted to appear before the learned trial Court and participate in the proceedings and the bail bonds as previously furnished by him be ordered to be restored. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by her that the MANJU 2026.04.07 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.18348 of 2026 -3- petitioner has been playing hide and seek with the trial Court. He has not appeared before the trial Court on several dates of hearing. Even proclamation proceedings had been initiated against him. He will again absent himself, if the petition is allowed. It is, therefore, stressed by her that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6. Copies of all the zimni orders as passed by the learned trial Court have been placed on record and as already mentioned and as on perusal of record, it is revealed that the petitioner had absented himself on 01.05.2025 and due to which his bail was cancelled. However, he had surrendered on 07.05.2025. His bail bonds were ordered to be restored and he was ordered to be released from custody. On the subsequent date of hearing that on 10.10.2025, he again absenteed himself. Interestingly and strangely though the learned trial Court initiated proceedings for declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person as on 10.10.2025 and adjourned the case for 26.11.2025 but by totally ignoring the purport of the previous order, subsequent two orders were passed thereby issuing non bailable warrants as against the petitioner. The position that emerges from the record is that the bail bonds of the petitioner had been restored on 07.05.2025 and have not been cancelled again. The learned trial Court is apparently adopting a careless approach in the matter by initiating proclamation proceedings and then abruptly changing the course and issuing non bailable warrants as against the petitioner without cancelling his bail. Taking into consideration the afore discussed circumstances, the petition is disposed of by giving MANJU 2026.04.07 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.18348 of 2026 -4- direction to the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 15 days from today. On his doing so and on his furnishing fresh personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, he will be admitted to bail by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court is also advised to be careful in future while passing zimni orders since no care has been taken of the fact that after initiation of proclamation proceedings, non bailable warrants had been ordered to be issued. 7. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court. (MANISHA BATRA) 06.04.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.04.07 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh